Jesus told us to be pacifists

[Thankful10]

And who do you think gave you the freedom to complain and rant that serving as a soldier is wrong. The soldier’s did. If it was not for soldiers Christian or not you would be a proud practicer of Islam starting from around the time of the reformation. Just wars do have there place.

Look at the wars/Battles of the OT. The Israelites went to war and fought as God commanded. This took place after the handing down of the ten commandments. So does God contradict him self when he sends them off to wage war. Do you think that know one died in the battle of Jericho or how bout when the Israelites fought and won when Moses held his staff high and would start to loose the battle when the staff would drop. Did not one person die in these battles. Then by your fallible interpretation God does contradict himself.

Jesus is God and he came here and he completed the Old Law.

(Matthew 5:17) “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved.”

Part of his completing the Old Law was the following.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

He said: “You have learnt how it was said” It is no longer to be the was it was in the Old Testatment.

 

[workingman]

Jesus is God and he came here and he completed the Old Law.

(Matthew 5:17) “Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. I tell you solemnly, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, shall disappear from the Law until its purpose is achieved.”

Part of his completing the Old Law was the following.

(Matthew 5:39) “You have learnt how it was said: ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I say this to you: offer the wicked man no resistance.”

(Matthew 5:43-44) “You have learnt how it was said, you must love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say this to you: love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”

He said: “You have learnt how it was said” It is no longer to be the was it was in the Old Testatment.

Your right he did not abolish the old law. He did fulfill it. So by your last statement the ten commandments should be thrown out with the bath watter. Should one not try to live the way the law says/follow the rules.

You still completely skirted answering if God contradicted himself in the OT and the NT by the actions God gave the Israelites. Would you care to answer? It should be a simple yes or no. You either agree that just wars have there place or you say God contradicted him self. So what is your answer.

 

[abucs]

I think Thankful10 that it is great that you appear to be gentle and non violent, and pray to God that is how it should stay.

I think it is doubtful though to take one line from the Bible and fit many different situations into that.

For example, the quote above (and more fuller below) about the sword is found in Luke :

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.

Now you could say that plainly Jesus is saying that if I don’t have a sword, sell my clothes and buy one. It is very plain and very simple. If you take the view that Holy Scripture can be broken down and read simply and should always be obeyed as it is written then we both should sell our clothes and buy a sword. (Would be great for the sword industry though )

Now i think i can be a Christian without buying a sword. Am i contradicting Jesus (in Luke) ? No, i don’t think so, though yes, it clearly says that i should buy a sword, when read simply and in isolation.

But this is where the community of the Catholic Church comes in. It’s not that there are some guys in robes telling me what to do or think, the church is the set of Christian believers down through the last 2 thousand years that have sufferred persecution and invasion and many things that, pray God, we never do.

That community also has interpreted the Bible in it’s own way and because of it’s much broader experiences. We are the recipients of that Christian experience and we would be foolish (i think) to ignore it.

For example, if i walk down the street and see a man bashing someone with a steel pipe, i don’t think i should turn the other cheek and keep walking. If i did that i would seriously think that i was failing as a Christian. Instead, i would think that the Christian thing to do would be to go to their aide and yes, if need be, fight and probably badly hurt the offender.

Now i still think the quote that you gave is valid and we should try to live up to that as much as possible. We should look to not start fights, or hold grudges or be aggressive towards people and we should try to learn to let a lot of things go and not be caught up in situations of personal conflict - where appropriate.

But there are some cases where the words expressed in Matthew (as in Luke) do not apply.

That does not mean they are ignored, but simply the experiences of the Christian people have come to an understanding of what it means and how Christians should be guided by those words.

We should be as you appear to be, peaceful and tolerant. And we should pray that circumstances don’t change to require us to be otherwise and if those circumstances do change we should think hard about whether it is a case for temporarily not being peaceful.

Helping someone being bashed by metal pipes would be one of those rare occassions IMHO. That is the Catholic tradition of the Church (the history and experience of Christian community).

We don’t think that is contradictory to Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus didn’t leave us two thousand years ago, He is here with us always until the end of the age, and He is sometimes here in the person who is getting bashed by the metal pipe that we need to go and help. IMHO.

 

[nsper7]

Also, it should be noted that “turning the other cheek” is a reference to a response one would make if slapped in the face, which is usually not considered a physical threat (the worst that happens is some stinging and a red mark of the size of the slapper’s hand ), but more an attack on one’s honor or a challenge to get the other person to react violently. Haven’t you ever seen those old movies where one guy slaps another with his glove or the back of his hand and the next thing you know they are dueling in the middle of the street (dueling is forbidden by the Church BTW).

 

[Thankful10]

I think Thankful10 that it is great that you appear to be gentle and non violent, and pray to God that is how it should stay.

I think it is doubtful though to take one line from the Bible and fit many different situations into that.

For example, the quote above (and more fuller below) about the sword is found in Luke :

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied**.(Luke 22:38) “Lord, they said ‘there are two swords here now,’ He said to them, ‘that is enough!

Here is what some bible scholars said about that passage of scripture: The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly. Also,

Jerusalem Bible: J. The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world. **
K. The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly.

Now you could say that plainly Jesus is saying that if I don’t have a sword, sell my clothes and buy one. It is very plain and very simple. If you take the view that Holy Scripture can be broken down and read simply and should always be obeyed as it is written then we both should sell our clothes and buy a sword. (Would be great for the sword industry though )

Now i think i can be a Christian without buying a sword. Am i contradicting Jesus (in Luke) ? No, i don’t think so, though yes, it clearly says that i should buy a sword, when read simply and in isolation.

But this is where the community of the Catholic Church comes in. It’s not that there are some guys in robes telling me what to do or think, the church is the set of Christian believers down through the last 2 thousand years that have sufferred persecution and invasion and many things that, pray God, we never do.

That community also has interpreted the Bible in it’s own way and because of it’s much broader experiences. We are the recipients of that Christian experience and we would be foolish (i think) to ignore it.

For example, if i walk down the street and see a man bashing someone with a steel pipe, i don’t think i should turn the other cheek and keep walking. If i did that i would seriously think that i was failing as a Christian. Instead, i would think that the Christian thing to do would be to go to their aide and yes, if need be, fight and probably badly hurt the offender.

Now i still think the quote that you gave is valid and we should try to live up to that as much as possible. We should look to not start fights, or hold grudges or be aggressive towards people and we should try to learn to let a lot of things go and not be caught up in situations of personal conflict - where appropriate.

But there are some cases where the words expressed in Matthew (as in Luke) do not apply.

That does not mean they are ignored, but simply the experiences of the Christian people have come to an understanding of what it means and how Christians should be guided by those words.

We should be as you appear to be, peaceful and tolerant. And we should pray that circumstances don’t change to require us to be otherwise and if those circumstances do change we should think hard about whether it is a case for temporarily not being peaceful.

Helping someone being bashed by metal pipes would be one of those rare occassions IMHO. That is the Catholic tradition of the Church (the history and experience of Christian community).

We don’t think that is contradictory to Jesus’ teachings.

Jesus didn’t leave us two thousand years ago, He is here with us always until the end of the age, and He is sometimes here in the person who is getting bashed by the metal pipe that we need to go and help. IMHO.

No one has a right to teach something different from what Jesus taught.
I only use one line from scripture, but there is much more. The early Christians knew and lived what Jesus taught

Do you ever wonder why the leaders in the Church and very few others don’t walk in the gifts of the Holy Spirit?

If people were living the whole Word of God then the light of Christianity would be so bright that nothing could withstand it.

(Galatians 1:6-9) “I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!”

 

[abucs]

Yes Thankful10 but who decides who walks in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and what Jesus taught and the interpretations of the Bible ?

Let’s be honest here, somebody 2000 years later, reading from a modern English translation of an older English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Aramaic words - saying that Jesus abruptly ended the conversation quickly is a complete guess with no proof whatsoever. Let’s be honest. And let’s be honest to say that this guess goes against the words of what is written. As soon as you start deciding that this was said figuratively, this was said as a joke, this was said for the apostles, this was said for the people of Jesus’ time, this was said for everyone for all time, this was said to end the conversation quickly then it is no longer the words themselves which have meanings, but the interpretation the readers give them. This is always the problem with limiting oneself to following words in a book. It always ends up in people interpreting what those words mean.

We can interpret that these words Jesus spoke were symbolic. It might be the correct interpretation, it might be 180 degrees wrong.

Some people might argue that here was a great chance for Jesus to teach pacifism and tell his disciples (and all of us Christians) not to take that quote too literally. Instead he gives the reply that two swords are enough after telling his disciples to sell their clothes and buy swords.

I’m not doubting that we agree about the sentiment behind what was said there. I also think it was a warning from Jesus to arm themselves figuratively, but who decides ? The words don’t actually say that.

Who decides if turning the other cheek extends to walking away from someone being beaten by a metal pipe. Who decides that ?

Who decides when conversations that happened 2000 years ago actually ended ubruptly and so we should take the opposite meaning of what was actually written. Who decides ?

It seems that the words themself become only secondary to the interpretation we give them. In order to interpret them we must have a context for that meaning by reading the Gospel in its entirety and in conjunction with the Christian communitie’s studying, understanding and shared experience. Otherwise we put our own individual interpretations to the different words and we all go off in different directions with a fracturing of the Christian community.

 

[abucs]

It’s the fracturing of the Christian community we should look to avoid. We should rather ‘build up the body of Christ’ instead of pulling it to peices in different directions.

But then again even the term - “building up the body of Christ” could easily be interpreted to mean different things if we put our own interpretations to it. We need to have a shared understanding, otherwise Christianity becomes a mess IMHO.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

And who do you think gave you the freedom to complain and rant that serving as a soldier is wrong. The soldier’s did. If it was not for soldiers Christian or not you would be a proud practicer of Islam starting from around the time of the reformation. Just wars do have there place.

Amen I say to you.

Self-interpretation of the Bible smacks of pride and arrogance. A person becomes his own little church, his own little godling. They reject the true authority of the Church, and belittle the sacrifices that keep them free to complain.

 

[Thankful10]

It’s the fracturing of the Christian community we should look to avoid. We should rather ‘build up the body of Christ’ instead of pulling it to peices in different directions.

But then again even the term - “building up the body of Christ” could easily be interpreted to mean different things if we put our own interpretations to it. We need to have a shared understanding, otherwise Christianity becomes a mess IMHO.

Jesus gave us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide each and everyone of God’s people.

Jesus said that his people would hear his voice and follow no other. Jesus also said that he would call his people by name.

If God promised to personally guide and teach us how is it that most people won’t let Him? I believe if Christians would truly let God teach each and every one, then there would become people of one mind and Spirit.

 

[Thankful10]

Yes Thankful10 but who decides who walks in the gifts of the Holy Spirit and what Jesus taught and the interpretations of the Bible ?

Let’s be honest here, somebody 2000 years later, reading from a modern English translation of an older English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Aramaic words - saying that Jesus abruptly ended the conversation quickly is a complete guess with no proof whatsoever. Let’s be honest. And let’s be honest to say that this guess goes against the words of what is written. As soon as you start deciding that this was said figuratively, this was said as a joke, this was said for the apostles, this was said for the people of Jesus’ time, this was said for everyone for all time, this was said to end the conversation quickly then it is no longer the words themselves which have meanings, but the interpretation the readers give them. This is always the problem with limiting oneself to following words in a book. It always ends up in people interpreting what those words mean.

We can interpret that these words Jesus spoke were symbolic. It might be the correct interpretation, it might be 180 degrees wrong.

Some people might argue that here was a great chance for Jesus to teach pacifism and tell his disciples (and all of us Christians) not to take that quote too literally. Instead he gives the reply that two swords are enough after telling his disciples to sell their clothes and buy swords.

I’m not doubting that we agree about the sentiment behind what was said there. I also think it was a warning from Jesus to arm themselves figuratively, but who decides ? The words don’t actually say that.

Who decides if turning the other cheek extends to walking away from someone being beaten by a metal pipe. Who decides that ?

Who decides when conversations that happened 2000 years ago actually ended ubruptly and so we should take the opposite meaning of what was actually written. Who decides ?

It seems that the words themself become only secondary to the interpretation we give them. In order to interpret them we must have a context for that meaning by reading the Gospel in its entirety and in conjunction with the Christian communitie’s studying, understanding and shared experience. Otherwise we put our own individual interpretations to the different words and we all go off in different directions with a fracturing of the Christian community.

People and that includes the people leading all Christian Churches, have made the Written Word of God almost useless. The only way one can understand what was said is to have Jesus/Holy Spirit tell them.

I will give you an example.

(Matthew 16:18-19) “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Now we don’t know if when Jesus was talking to Peter that he was not pointing to himself when he said “on this rock I will build my church”. People assume that Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock. The written Word conveys very little of a conversation. Because of this man will make the written word read just the way he or she would like it to read.

You want to know why I believe Jesus is God? It is because Jesus told me he was God. The same goes of why I believe we are not to hurt/harm anyone for any reason, that the Bible is the Written Word of God, that Christians are dead to sin. There is much more that I believe because Jesus told me, but the most important may be the ones I have already quoted.

 

[momor]

Thankful. Many postings back you were asked if you eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood. I don’t think you ever answered.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Can Thankful answer any question in his own words?

 

[Sir_Knight]

**“Lord, they said ‘there are two swords here now,’ He said to them, ‘that is enough!

Here is what some bible scholars said about that passage of scripture: The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly. Also,

Jerusalem Bible: J. The purse to buy, the sword to procure by force the necessities of life. All this is symbolic of a mission in a hostile world. **
K. The Apostles have taken the words of Jesus too literally and he closes the conversation abruptly.

As far as the Apostles misunderstanding Christ’s figurative language, recall that scripture tells us in Mark 4:34 that while Jesus spoke in parables to the crowds, He explained EVERYTHING privately to His Apostles and that explanation is ALWAYS found in scripture whenever it was recorded that the Apostles misunderstood something. If, the Apostles misunderstood and Jesus was not referring to real swords, why did He not explain that to them? This would be the only place in the four gospels where Jesus did not explain something that the Apostles misunderstood. Maybe because no explanation was needed because the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was referring to actual swords.

Jesus was preparing the Apostles to spread the Gospel message after He is gone. Would it make sense for Jesus to see that the Apostles misunderstood something and not explain it to them since if they misunderstood, they’ll be preaching the wrong message? Not something that one would expect from the “great teacher”.

This Gospel account was written many years later after the Holy Spirit opened the minds of the Aposltles to the Gospel. Does it make sense that they would explain all of Jesus’s other teaching but not this one? Highly unlikely. The only possible reason why a true explanation isn’t offered is because the Apostles already understood the true meaning.

And if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, why did He mix it in with other physical items (sandals, momey pouch, etc.) in that passage? That’s rather confusing ESPECIALLY if He didn’t bother to explain it. Again, something that a “great teacher” would not do.

And, again, if Jesus did not mean a physical sword, then what does this passage mean? “… Sell your coat and buy a sword …” – what does that mean if it isn’t referring to physical items? Sell our coat and buy what?

Nope. Jesus was referring to physical weapons. Anyone who says otherwise is mistaken because it raises too many issues which can not be explained away. NONE of these issues come up if one takes the position that Jesus was talking about actual swords.

 

[abucs]

Jesus gave us his Holy Spirit to teach and guide each and everyone of God’s people.

Jesus said that his people would hear his voice and follow no other. Jesus also said that he would call his people by name.

If God promised to personally guide and teach us how is it that most people won’t let Him? I believe if Christians would truly let God teach each and every one, then there would become people of one mind and Spirit.

Thankful10, i think you are right to say we should be guided by the Holy Spirit but when you say most people won’t let Him (God/the Spirit) guide them, does not that really mean most people don’t let God guide them the way you believe that God is guiding them ? And do you not mean that if everybody was guided by the one Spirit then they would be of one mind and Spirit - which is where you are now. That is, if they let God guide them, they would be like you ?

There are countless millions of Christians who believe that exact thing only their mind and Spirit is different to yours in different ways. Yet they all claim the Holy Spirit as a guide. While you might think we should be doing one thing and those people are wrong, they will think we should be doing another and you are wrong. Yet both claim the Holy Spirit as guides and both read isolated passages of the Bible as support.

So let me do a similar thing but from a 2000 year Church perspective. From the Bible we read that Jesus told his apostles :

“Go ye, teach all nations: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Mt 28:19-20).

Those apostles appointed Bishops in the areas they went to and this has continued for 2000 years.

Jesus promised to build his Church (Mt 16:18). He said that final decisions were to be submitted to the Church (Mt 18:17) which Paul tells us is the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15, and Timothy was the Bishop of Ephesus). The Church and her apostles and bishops were ruling in the visible organized Church long before a New Testament was compiled.

I note that Jesus said nowhere to his Apostles, followers and future followers to compile an account of what happened, to accept a future Paul/Mark/Luke’s writings/letters etc etc, to let the Bishops of the Church decide which writings are scripture and so be compiled into a book and that everybody should then read that book, compiled by the Church, and let their own thoughts (or Holy Spirit) on those words guide them above the Church. Jesus didn’t say anything even close to that. Who decided that is how Christians should behave ?

The Scripture you quote about the “Spirit guiding to the truth” was spoken to the Apostles in private before Pentecost. Those same Apostles who then appointed Bishops in a Church.

Who decides that Jesus really meant those words for all future Christians in relation to a book that the Church had not even written or compiled yet and that the very people he actually spoke to about being guided by the Spirit and who subsequently appointed Bishops got it wrong and weren’t actually guided by the Holy Spirit ?

Who decided that ?

 

[abucs]

You say Jesus said “his people would hear his voice and follow no other” and Jesus also said “that he would call his people by name”.

Who decides this means that He will speak to each individual Christian through a book that was not yet written and be interpreted individually outside of the Church ?

Who decides how these words are interpreted ?

For example, He spoke these words you quote about in relation to ‘His sheep’ in John’s Gospel as follows :

John 10:1-21

Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever does not enter a sheepfold through the gate but climbs over elsewhere is a thief and a robber. But whoever enters through the gate is the shepherd of the sheep.
The gatekeeper opens it for him, and the sheep hear his voice, as he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out.
When he has driven out all his own, he walks ahead of them, and the sheep follow him, because they recognize his voice.
But they will not follow a stranger; they will run away from him, because they do not recognize the voice of strangers."
Although Jesus used this figure of speech, they did not realize what he was trying to tell them.
So Jesus said again, "Amen, amen, I say to you, I am the gate for the sheep.
All who came [before me] are thieves and robbers, but the sheep did not listen to them.
I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved, and will come in and go out and find pasture.
A thief comes only to steal and slaughter and destroy; I came so that they might have life and have it more abundantly.
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.
A hired man, who is not a shepherd and whose sheep are not his own, sees a wolf coming and leaves the sheep and runs away, and the wolf catches and scatters them.
This is because he works for pay and has no concern for the sheep.
I am the good shepherd, and I know mine and mine know me,
just as the Father knows me and I know the Father; and I will lay down my life for the sheep.
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd.

These words are paralled in Ezekiel of the Old Testament :

In Ezekiel 34 God says repeatedly “I myself will look after and tend my sheep”… “I myself will pasture my sheep” (34:11-15)… but in verse 23, God says: “I will appoint one shepherd over my sheep to pasture them, my servant David; he shall pasture my sheep and be their shepherd”

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel+34&version=NIV

Also, in the same Gospel of John that Jesus mentions the sheep knowing his voice, after Jesus has been ressurrected and appears to Cephas (the Rock) one of the very last things Jesus says on Earth is to Cephas (Peter) which is :

John Chapter 21:15-19

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep. “Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to gird yourself and walk wherever you wished; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and someone else will gird you, and bring you where you do not wish to go.” Now this He said, signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me!”

The original Greek actually says “Shepherd my sheep” so i chose the New American Standard Bible 1985 translation. It is the same Greek word (shepherd) John uses above in Chapter 10 which is where your quote comes from.

bible.cc/john/21-16.htm

Now Thankful10, that is how the Church understands the quotes you give. that is, that is how the body of Christians over the last 2000 years understand the words you quote.

Now yes, you could interpret that the words ‘hear His voice and no other’ to mean that you will read a book not yet written when Jesus spoke those words, to be written by the Church, compiled by the Bishops (successors of the Apostles) and then you have a direct line to God through the Holy Spirit in interpreting what God wants and that all others who do the same but come up with a different interpretation are not being guided properly by God.

You can have that interpretation if you want, but we have to admit that this is your interpretation of “'hear His voice and no other” apart from the context of the sheep where we find those words above expressed by John.

I think the history of the Christian community over the last 2000 years has a better interpretation of those words but who decides ?

I think you are absolutely right to say we should look to be guided by the Holy Spirit, but how do we know when we actually are or if we’ve made a mistake ? Who decides ?

Perhaps we should look for “who decides” in the Church Jesus asked to “Shepherd His sheep” which is why He spoke these final words and John recorded them ?

Who decides - i think God acting through the continuing 2000 year old Christian Church.

 

[abucs]

If you think that you decide, and you are sure of this through your confidence in being guided by the Holy Spirit, apart from that continuing Church, and you are content that like minded Christians are mistakenly being “guided” differently, then that is your call Thankful10 and you of course have every right to think that and i respect your thoughts on the subject.

To answer your original question though from my perspective, i don’t think i am going against God by being in the Church.

May He continue to guide and bless both of us.

 

[chessmane4e5]

People and that includes the people leading all Christian Churches, have made the Written Word of God almost useless. The only way one can understand what was said is to have Jesus/Holy Spirit tell them.

I will give you an example.

(Matthew 16:18-19) “I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Now we don’t know if when Jesus was talking to Peter that he was not pointing to himself when he said “on this rock I will build my church”. People assume that Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock. The written Word conveys very little of a conversation. Because of this man will make the written word read just the way he or she would like it to read.

You want to know why I believe Jesus is God? It is because Jesus told me he was God. The same goes of why I believe we are not to hurt/harm anyone for any reason, that the Bible is the Written Word of God, that Christians are dead to sin. There is much more that I believe because Jesus told me, but the most important may be the ones I have already quoted.

You could be right about the part I bolded, but if this was so, we would have historic evidence.

The other 10 Apostles (and I am sure others) would have argued against Peter being the leader of the early Church. Their is not one line of any such evidence.

This is why Scripture must be read with the knowledge of Tradition. We know from Tradition that all the Apostles and everyone they taught, accepted Peter (Cephas, the Rock) as the leader appointed by Jesus. In fact, until recently, no one argued this fact. Even the Eastern Church (around 1000 AD) or Martin Luther (around 1500 AD) accepted that Peter was the first Pope, they had issues with succession or in Luther’s case he wanted to be Pope.

The biggest fault I find with Scripture alone is that it is clearly not the full message of Jesus or the Apostles. Think about Paul’s letters. They are all written to Church’s that he had previously established in person. When he was there, he was teaching them, by word of mouth, how to follow Christ. He then later wrote the letters because he could not visit the Church in person. He even references in his letters to remember what he taught them or said. The only way we know what he originally taught is from Tradition.

But as for your OP, it just doesn’t make sense. The best evidence you have is Jesus saying He is going to complete the Old Law (but not change it) and then He said that Eye for an Eye and Tooth for a Tooth should now be offer the wicked man no resistance.

But EFAE or TFAT is not even talking about war or even fighting. In the Old Testament it gives examples. Like, someone kills my ox, they need to replace it with one of their own. Or, if someone did cause damage to my eye, I take them to court and the punishment if for me to damage his eye.

What Jesus is saying is that this is not right. If someone has already caused you harm, then revenge is not the answer. The key is, REVENGE. Just wars or self-defense are completely different.

I think you also said something about Jesus teaching to turn the other cheek if some one strikes their right cheek with their right hand. Again, this is talking about 2 individuals having a “fight”. If one of them resorts to physical violence, do not fight back. But the key is, it was only one blow. Jesus did not say “And if someone is punching you in the face 10 times, let them punch you 10 more.” If we were having a disagreement and out of anger I slapped you (by the way, think about the only way to strike someone on their right cheek with your right hand ) this could result in you hitting me (eye for an eye) then I get mad and hit you again, and now we have a fight. BUT if you did what Jesus said, and turned the other cheek…

But I say again, this is does not apply to war. The Old Testament was very clear on defending oneself from enemies. Since Jesus did not come to CHANGE anything, but merely complete it, I think my explanations fit better than a pacifist approach to every and all situations.